As 2026 approaches, uncertainty is growing about whether the cryptocurrency market structure bill will pass early in the year or be further delayed by political battles.
Key unresolved issues in the bill, such as stablecoin yields, conflict of interest-related terms, and the treatment of decentralized finance under federal law, continue to hinder momentum.
Uncertain Senate Voting Path
The CLARITY Act passed the House in July with broad bipartisan support, representing the strongest movement towards a federal digital asset framework.
The bill is now awaiting Senate action as the Banking and Agriculture Committees push for parallel versions of the market structure framework. The division of jurisdiction in the Senate adds complexity, as the Banking Committee oversees securities and the Agriculture Committee deals with commodities.
Currently, both committees have released discussion drafts, but a unified proposal has not yet emerged. Lawmakers still need to reconcile their differences before the two committees submit a combined bill to the Senate.
One of the major technical debates is how the bill should treat interest income stablecoins.
Pushing broader yield restrictions for banks
The genius bill passed earlier this year prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying holders any form of interest or yield.
However, this restriction is defined very narrowly. It applies only to direct payments by payment stablecoin issuers and does not explicitly apply to reward programs, third-party yields, or other digital asset structures.
The banking group argues that these gaps could allow for circumvention and urges lawmakers to expand prohibitive provisions in future market structure bills. They want broad rules covering all forms of yields related to stablecoins.
Some senators are showing an open attitude toward this approach, suggesting that this issue will play a significant role in negotiations. Expanded regulations could affect how stablecoins compete with traditional bank deposits, which remains a core concern for bank lobbying.
Meanwhile, lawmakers are still divided on how a broad framework should address potential conflicts of interest.
Deepening concerns about political influence
An investigation into potential ethical concerns has been renewed as U.S. President Donald Trump and his family engage in cryptocurrency-related projects.
Some lawmakers, like Senator Elizabeth Warren, argue that new conflict of interest provisions are needed to prevent politicians and their relatives from engaging in activities that could raise questions about their influence on digital asset policy.
These measures will help isolate the bill from the perception of political interference.
However, the proposed language did not appear in the CLARITY bill that passed the House and was also not included in the Senate's initial draft. The absence of this language has become a point of contention and continues to be a cause of hesitation amid ongoing disagreements.
Meanwhile, questions remain about how the bill should address decentralized finance (DeFi).
Unresolved issues regarding DeFi oversight
The market structure bill is designed for centralized intermediaries such as exchanges, brokers, and custody platforms. However, the rapid growth of DeFi has raised issues that the Senate has not fully addressed.
The current draft primarily focuses on custody activities. However, some traditional financial institutions support a broader definition that classifies developers, validators, and other non-custodial actors as regulated intermediaries.
This approach could significantly expand federal oversight and reshape the legal environment for open-source development.
This bill will not progress until lawmakers define that boundary. The DeFi issue remains a key factor in determining the timing of the final push for the market structure bill in 2026.
